Philosophy Discussion Forums

It's possible to be over-managed and over-governed, and it's possible to be under-managed and under-governed. A small business doesn't need much more than the owner to manage it. A large multi-national corporation will need many more levels of management. A well run liberal democracy needs some regulation and officials to manage that regulation. A dictatorship can be about mangement jobs for the boys and rampant corruption where regulation becomes meaningless and the country becomes an economic basket case. As always, it's about balance.

Balancing control and latitude in complex societies with millions of people, many corporations, small businesses, advocacy groups and broad demographics is beyond any politician. They are all bluffing, pretending that they know what they are doing as they are constantly blindsided by events they did not foresee, or they find they are prevented from acting for logistical or political reasons.

Besides, given the dynamic nature of society, the very moment that you have achieved the perfect balance, that balance is already shifting. I sound like a broken record, but AI is humanity's only hope of sensible governance. It's possible, though, that if we are provided with truly rational and sensible governance, we might not like it.

LuckyR wrote: ↑March 29th, 2024, 11:31 am

kilobug wrote: ↑March 27th, 2024, 4:32 pm I think Thyrlix is totally right in that people will be corrupt with power

Everyone needs to feel important. Many fulfill that already, others need to step on "ants" to accomplish it. Sad, really.

Maybe, but that is an oversimplification of my motivation and unfair.

Yes, people generally yearn to feel important, but feeling important would not (for me) the main pay-out in ruling over a civilization of intelligent ant-sized people. Even if it were, that feeling would quickly get old after a few days.

For me, personally, this is more about the fun of influencing and reshaping an entire society on a mass scale... determining the direction of an intelligent society.

It's better to think about it more like a sim game, I guess? Whenever I have played those, I certainly did not feel "important" since I was in a completely behind-the-scenes faceless role. Yet there was still fun to be had about in determining how the city or civilization would be shaped. Ruling over a tiny civilization of ant-sized people would just be an even more intense and immersive sandbox sim game for me, where I get to take a more direct role in the outcomes and indulge myself in other ways.

You're implying that my goal in this is to feel important by destroying something, or as you say, step on ants, but that isn't it. Would I experiment? Sure. Would I try to test the limits of their obedience or see how far they’d go to meet my needs? Of course I would push boundaries. My choice would be to terrorize and rule through fear, absolutely. Yet, I wouldn't be entirely malicious. I would not want to see the little guys get wiped out. Rather, I would actually prefer that their population thrive instead of decimate it. If they were threatened by a natural disaster, I would do everything I could to shield them from it. But, I would also want to be the natural disaster sometimes.

Overall, the main goal in this hypothetical is not about destroying something to feel important -- even though feeling important is a perk that is inherent to the role I am describing. There is more here than that. It is still about building something, even if it is abstract. This is about being architect, destroyer, and enforcer in a world where every outcome is tied to your will. If you want to tie that to one "feeling" that is being chased... perhaps it would be dominion.